Hi Geert, On 23/06/2020 13:08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Jon, > > More stirring in the cesspool ;-) Ha! Indeed. > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:13 PM Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 21/06/2020 06:47, Dinghao Liu wrote: >>> pm_runtime_get_sync() increments the runtime PM usage counter even >>> when it returns an error code. Thus a pairing decrement is needed on >>> the error handling path to keep the counter balanced. >> >> So you have not mentioned here why you are using _noidle and not _put. >> Furthermore, in this patch [0] you are not using _noidle to fix the same >> problem in another driver. We should fix this in a consistent manner >> across all drivers, otherwise it leads to more confusion. >> >> Finally, Rafael mentions we should just use _put [0] and so I think we >> should follow his recommendation. >> >> Jon >> >> [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/21/601 > > "_noidle() is the simplest one and it is sufficient." > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/CAJZ5v0i87NGcy9+kxubScdPDyByr8ypQWcGgBFn+V-wDd69BHQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Good to know. This detail should be spelled out in the changelog so that it is clear why we are using _noidle and not _put. I did take a look and it did seem to handle the usage_count OK, but I was concerned if there could be something else in the _put path that may get missed. Anyway, I am fine with the change, but with an updated changelog on why _noidle is being used. > You never know what additional things the other put* variants > will start doing in the future... Hopefully not, as that would be a breakage of the API itself. From what Rafael said that all _put calls should work and if at some point in the future they don't, then that seems like a regression. Jon -- nvpublic
